* Arjan van de Ven <ar...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> for some time software needs to support both, especially if popular
> >> distros
> >> stick to an older kernel like *cough* RHEL6
> >
> > Sure, you can support both. But as long as support for the _new_ events is
> > included in PowerTop there's no need to keep the duality upstream. Running
> > ancient PowerTop on fresh kernels is not common.
> >
> > An old RHEL kernel will still keep on working as you can keep support for
> > old
> > events in PowerTop as long as you wish to.
> >
> > The new kernel also wont 'overwrite' old events with new definitions in the
> > future, so PowerTop will keep working for as long as you want to support
> > older
> > kernels.
> >
> > Does that sound good?
>
> this does not scale much long term, eg this only works if this is only done
> once,
> and these points are stable afterwards. otherwise we get 25 of those
> different
> "workarounds for kernel ABI breakage" into all different projects, and it
> becomes
> untestable for all the poor software writers...
I have no intention for this to become common. For the 2+ years tracepoints
have
been upstream this is the first time it has come up. It's a rare occurance, and
as
long as we keep it rare and as long as we have a smooth transition process in
place
it should be good. If it becomes common we are doing something wrong ...
Alternatively you might want to review the new power events and suggest ways to
add
that extra information to existing events that suits your purposes as well. You
added the old power tracepoints so you sure must have an opinion about it all?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
